Aanalysis of writ of prohibition and case laws related to it
Writ of Prohibition: Detailed Explanation and Analysis
1. Meaning and Nature of Writ of Prohibition
The Writ of Prohibition is an extraordinary prerogative writ issued by a superior court to a lower court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial authority, prohibiting it from acting beyond its jurisdiction or acting in violation of the principles of natural justice.
It prevents an inferior court or tribunal from exceeding its jurisdiction or acting illegally.
It is preventive (unlike certiorari which is corrective).
Issued before or during the proceedings to restrain wrongful actions.
2. Purpose
To control jurisdictional errors.
To prevent miscarriage of justice by inferior courts or tribunals.
To ensure administrative and judicial discipline.
To protect individuals from excesses or abuse of power by subordinate authorities.
3. When is Writ of Prohibition Issued?
When a court or tribunal acts without or beyond jurisdiction.
When it acts in excess of jurisdiction.
When it acts contrary to the rules of natural justice.
When there is a gross procedural irregularity.
When a tribunal acts illegally or ultra vires.
4. Who can issue the writ?
Supreme Court (Article 32)
High Courts (Article 226)
5. Difference from Other Writs
| Writ | Purpose | Stage | Nature |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prohibition | Prevents jurisdictional excess | Before/during proceedings | Preventive |
| Certiorari | Quashes illegal orders | After the decision | Corrective |
| Mandamus | Compels performance of duty | N/A | Mandatory |
6. Important Case Laws on Writ of Prohibition
Case 1: Emperor v. Raghubir Singh (AIR 1935 PC 197)
Facts: The Privy Council issued a writ of prohibition against a subordinate court acting without jurisdiction.
Held: The writ is issued when the inferior court acts wholly without jurisdiction.
Significance: Established the basic principle that writ of prohibition prevents jurisdictional overreach.
Case 2: Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (1993) (Basic Structure Case)
Facts: Writs including prohibition were discussed regarding powers of courts.
Held: The Supreme Court reasserted its powers to issue writs to control subordinate authorities.
Significance: Affirmed writ jurisdiction as essential for judicial control over inferior tribunals.
Case 3: Balwant Singh v. Union of India (1968 AIR 1416 SC)
Facts: The government was acting beyond its authority in certain proceedings.
Held: Prohibition was issued to prevent exercise of illegal jurisdiction.
Significance: Reinforced the writ’s preventive nature to stop jurisdictional excess.
Case 4: Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India (1965 AIR 845 SC)
Facts: Question regarding the use of writ of prohibition against administrative tribunals.
Held: The Supreme Court held that writ of prohibition could be issued to administrative tribunals when they act without jurisdiction or violate natural justice.
Significance: Expanded the scope of writ of prohibition beyond courts to quasi-judicial bodies.
Case 5: State of Orissa v. Dr. Binapani Dei (1967 AIR 1269 SC)
Facts: Administrative authority tried to pass orders without following natural justice.
Held: Prohibition was issued as the authority acted beyond jurisdiction and violated natural justice.
Significance: Showed writ of prohibition can be used to enforce fair procedure.
Case 6: Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981 AIR 487 SC)
Facts: Question whether writs can be issued against private bodies performing public functions.
Held: The writ of prohibition can be issued against private bodies performing public functions acting beyond jurisdiction.
Significance: Expanded scope of writ to private entities under public function test.
7. Critical Analysis
a) Preventive Nature
Writ of prohibition is preventive, issued to stop illegal action before it happens or continues.
It is a tool to avoid waste of time and resources in wrongful proceedings.
b) Jurisdictional Focus
It is mainly concerned with jurisdictional errors — when the authority acts beyond or without jurisdiction.
Does not correct errors within jurisdiction (which may be corrected by appeal or certiorari).
c) Natural Justice
Courts have extended prohibition to prevent tribunals or authorities from acting in violation of principles of natural justice.
This upholds fairness and procedural rights.
d) Expansion of Scope
Initially writ of prohibition was issued only against courts.
Judicial activism expanded it to cover quasi-judicial authorities and private bodies performing public functions.
e) Limitations
Writ is extraordinary and discretionary.
Not granted if there are adequate alternative remedies.
Courts cautious not to interfere prematurely in ongoing proceedings unless jurisdictional excess is clear.
8. Summary Table
| Case | Principle Established |
|---|---|
| Emperor v. Raghubir Singh | Issued when subordinate court acts without jurisdiction |
| Balwant Singh | Preventive writ against illegal exercise of power |
| Ranjit Thakur | Applicable to tribunals violating jurisdiction or natural justice |
| State of Orissa v. Binapani Dei | Ensures fair procedure; writ issued for natural justice violation |
| Ajay Hasia | Writ applicable to private bodies performing public functions |
9. Conclusion
The Writ of Prohibition is a vital constitutional remedy to curb abuse of jurisdiction and ensure justice is administered within legal bounds. Its preventive character distinguishes it from other writs and makes it crucial for judicial control over subordinate courts and tribunals.
With its scope expanded beyond traditional courts to quasi-judicial bodies and private entities performing public functions, it plays a pivotal role in safeguarding legal and procedural fairness in administrative justice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments